Skip to main content
Law

Return to Answer

edited body
Source Link
Jen
Jen
  • 72.7k
  • 5
  • 151
  • 318

Resources

You are asking about the issue in Moore v. Harper, which has a SCOTUSblog entry here. SCOTUSblog is a good resource for learning about the arguments in cases before the Supreme Court.

There, you will find:

You can listen to the oral argument here.

Since you have not indicated what aspect of the issue or arguments you do not understand, I will only briefly describe the debate and leave it to you to read the briefs or other material to learn more. And if you have a more precise question after more reading, you can always ask a new question.

Background

The background is that the North Carolina Supreme Court declared that a congressional map drawn by the North Carolina legislature was contrary to the state constitution. The matter was remitted to trial. But the trial court was not satisfied with the legislature's attempted improvements, so it substituted its own "judicially crafted" map. This is the map that would be used in electing members of the federal House of Representatives.

Issue

The issue is whether the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution (which says that the manner of federal elections shall "be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof") limits the role that a state judiciary can play in determining the boundaries of federal congressional districts.

BasisBasic argument of the petitioner

The petitioner's argument is roughly that only the state legislature may play a role in federal districting and not any other state entity or the state as a whole. They also argue that the state constitution cannot impose additional constraints on federal districting by the state legislature: only federal constitutional limits apply.

Basic argument of the respondent

The respondents' argument is that legislated election regulations, including those that establish the district boundaries are not immune from judicial review. They argue that the legislated process chosen by the North Carolina General Assembly, includes a provision for judicial review. They also argue that state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for courts to apply.

Resources

You are asking about the issue in Moore v. Harper, which has a SCOTUSblog entry here. SCOTUSblog is a good resource for learning about the arguments in cases before the Supreme Court.

There, you will find:

You can listen to the oral argument here.

Since you have not indicated what aspect of the issue or arguments you do not understand, I will only briefly describe the debate and leave it to you to read the briefs or other material to learn more. And if you have a more precise question after more reading, you can always ask a new question.

Background

The background is that the North Carolina Supreme Court declared that a congressional map drawn by the North Carolina legislature was contrary to the state constitution. The matter was remitted to trial. But the trial court was not satisfied with the legislature's attempted improvements, so it substituted its own "judicially crafted" map. This is the map that would be used in electing members of the federal House of Representatives.

Issue

The issue is whether the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution (which says that the manner of federal elections shall "be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof") limits the role that a state judiciary can play in determining the boundaries of federal congressional districts.

Basis argument of the petitioner

The petitioner's argument is roughly that only the state legislature may play a role in federal districting and not any other state entity or the state as a whole. They also argue that the state constitution cannot impose additional constraints on federal districting by the state legislature: only federal constitutional limits apply.

Basic argument of the respondent

The respondents' argument is that legislated election regulations, including those that establish the district boundaries are not immune from judicial review. They argue that the legislated process chosen by the North Carolina General Assembly, includes a provision for judicial review. They also argue that state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for courts to apply.

Resources

You are asking about the issue in Moore v. Harper, which has a SCOTUSblog entry here. SCOTUSblog is a good resource for learning about the arguments in cases before the Supreme Court.

There, you will find:

You can listen to the oral argument here.

Since you have not indicated what aspect of the issue or arguments you do not understand, I will only briefly describe the debate and leave it to you to read the briefs or other material to learn more. And if you have a more precise question after more reading, you can always ask a new question.

Background

The background is that the North Carolina Supreme Court declared that a congressional map drawn by the North Carolina legislature was contrary to the state constitution. The matter was remitted to trial. But the trial court was not satisfied with the legislature's attempted improvements, so it substituted its own "judicially crafted" map. This is the map that would be used in electing members of the federal House of Representatives.

Issue

The issue is whether the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution (which says that the manner of federal elections shall "be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof") limits the role that a state judiciary can play in determining the boundaries of federal congressional districts.

Basic argument of the petitioner

The petitioner's argument is roughly that only the state legislature may play a role in federal districting and not any other state entity or the state as a whole. They also argue that the state constitution cannot impose additional constraints on federal districting by the state legislature: only federal constitutional limits apply.

Basic argument of the respondent

The respondents' argument is that legislated election regulations, including those that establish the district boundaries are not immune from judicial review. They argue that the legislated process chosen by the North Carolina General Assembly, includes a provision for judicial review. They also argue that state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for courts to apply.

Source Link
Jen
Jen
  • 72.7k
  • 5
  • 151
  • 318

Resources

You are asking about the issue in Moore v. Harper, which has a SCOTUSblog entry here. SCOTUSblog is a good resource for learning about the arguments in cases before the Supreme Court.

There, you will find:

You can listen to the oral argument here.

Since you have not indicated what aspect of the issue or arguments you do not understand, I will only briefly describe the debate and leave it to you to read the briefs or other material to learn more. And if you have a more precise question after more reading, you can always ask a new question.

Background

The background is that the North Carolina Supreme Court declared that a congressional map drawn by the North Carolina legislature was contrary to the state constitution. The matter was remitted to trial. But the trial court was not satisfied with the legislature's attempted improvements, so it substituted its own "judicially crafted" map. This is the map that would be used in electing members of the federal House of Representatives.

Issue

The issue is whether the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution (which says that the manner of federal elections shall "be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof") limits the role that a state judiciary can play in determining the boundaries of federal congressional districts.

Basis argument of the petitioner

The petitioner's argument is roughly that only the state legislature may play a role in federal districting and not any other state entity or the state as a whole. They also argue that the state constitution cannot impose additional constraints on federal districting by the state legislature: only federal constitutional limits apply.

Basic argument of the respondent

The respondents' argument is that legislated election regulations, including those that establish the district boundaries are not immune from judicial review. They argue that the legislated process chosen by the North Carolina General Assembly, includes a provision for judicial review. They also argue that state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for courts to apply.